the conservative case for same sex marriage

[Caleb8844]

a tree can't consent.

problem solved.

also, i am not committing crimes, like incest or polygamy, just to get that out of the way.

I really just found that link amusing I didn't mean anything by it

 

[BoMac]

In my opinion, the main problem with legalizing same sex marriages is it blurs the lines of the definition of marriage. It could be a seriously slippery slope

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "definition of marriage" has evolved over time, and marriage as we know it today is only a relatively novel concept. So why can't it continue to evolve?

 

[Irvine511]

I really just found that link amusing I didn't mean anything by it

fair enough, but please understand that it's a fairly relevant issue for me, and it is insulting to be compared to a polygamist, a rapist (since, in incest, a child can't consent), or a christmas tree.

 

[Caleb8844]

fair enough, but please understand that it's a fairly relevant issue for me, and it is insulting to be compared to a polygamist, a rapist (since, in incest, a child can't consent), or a christmas tree.

I never compared it to any of those of those things. In fact, I specifically stated that gay marriage was nothing like any of the things I stated. I simply said that making the definition of marriage simply "people who are in love" is a slippery slope

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "definition of marriage" has evolved over time, and marriage as we know it today is only a relatively novel concept. So why can't it continue to evolve?

That's how just about everything is, and people don't seem to understand this anymore. Things such as sports, education, music, etc. have all evolved. But for some reason 'new' is no longer acceptable.

 

[Caleb8844]

That's how just about everything is, and people don't seem to understand this anymore. Things such as sports, education, music, etc. have all evolved. But for some reason 'new' is no longer acceptable.

I think we all agree that marriage is on a different level than sports, education, and music are, no?

 

[Irvine511]

I simply said that making the definition of marriage simply "people who are in love" is a slippery slope

who is doing that? what i am interested in is removing legal language that prohibits adults from marrying their same gender. that's really it.

 

[Caleb8844]

who is doing that? what i am interested in is removing legal language that prohibits adults from marrying their same gender. that's really it.

That may be all you're looking to do, but there are some crazy people in this world. Once you start removing legal language that prohibits certain marriages, who's to say where that will end?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I think we all agree that marriage is on a different level than sports, education, and music are, no?

No? No. It's life. Life is forever changing, and it doesn't matter what level you're observing it on.

I understand it's slow evolution, but could you imagine a 'new' religion forming? It gets laughed at. A 'new' country? Wouldn't happen anymore, at least not legitimately. Okay, I understand that yes these are on different levels, but just because it's not on a different level doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past.

People are almost afraid of change, and such changes used to come naturally.

 

[Caleb8844]

No? No. It's life. Life is forever changing, and it doesn't matter what level you're observing it on.

I understand it's slow evolution, but could you imagine a 'new' religion forming? It gets laughed at. A 'new' country? Wouldn't happen anymore, at least not legitimately. Okay, I understand that yes these are on different levels, but just because it's not on a different level doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past.

People are almost afraid of change, and such changes used to come naturally.

It could be argued that there a very few changes (with one or two exceptions) of signigicant magnitude that have naturally occurred in the definition of marriage, even in the past

 

[Irvine511]

That may be all you're looking to do, but there are some crazy people in this world. Once you start removing legal language that prohibits certain marriages, who's to say where that will end?

the laws on the books? legislatures? the judiciary?

 

[Irvine511]

It could be argued that there a very few changes (with one or two exceptions) of signigicant magnitude that have naturally occurred in the definition of marriage, even in the past

there are people alive today -- like, say, Loretta Lynn -- who married men decades older than them when they were 13 years old.

that's changed. we now call that rape.

 

[Caleb8844]

there are people alive today -- like, say, Loretta Lynn -- who married men decades older than them when they were 13 years old.

that's changed. we now call that rape.

This narrowed the definition of marriage. There are very few changes (perhaps other than interracial marriage) that have widened the definition over the years

 

[LuckyNumber7]

there are people alive today -- like, say, Loretta Lynn -- who married men decades older than them when they were 13 years old.

that's changed. we now call that rape.

Or... ya know... Jerry Lee Lewis.

Just to add to your point.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

This narrowed the definition of marriage. There are very few changes (perhaps other than interracial marriage) that have widened the definition over the years

Narrowed, expanded, so what? It's change, that's the most important thing.

It's not as simple as narrowing and expanding. It is dynamic, and forever changing.

I don't mean to say this as "you're a racist", nor do I mean to call you out in any way, but you do realize that people who are against homosexuality are fighting the same battle of hate that people were fighting against blacks in the 1960s?

The argument at hand is that "we are superior to you, and therefore you shall be oppressed." Now, I know it's not that simple, but you'd imagine people would learn from history but they just don't.

 

[Caleb8844]

I don't mean to say this as "you're a racist", nor do I mean to call you out in any way, but you do realize that people who are against homosexuality are fighting the same battle of hate that people were fighting against blacks in the 1960s?

The argument at hand is that "we are superior to you, and therefore you shall be oppressed." Now, I know it's not that simple, but you'd imagine people would learn from history but they just don't.

I think I've been pretty civil throughout this debate. I haven't demeaned you for your beliefs, nor demeaned homosexuals. It's rather insulting and uncalled for to call me a racist.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I don't mean to say this as "you're a racist", nor do I mean to call you out in any way

I think I've been pretty civil throughout this debate. I haven't demeaned you for your beliefs, nor demeaned homosexuals. It's rather insulting and uncalled for to call me a racist.

 

[Caleb8844]

I know you said you didn't mean to call me a racist, but when you say I'm fighting a battle of hate because I view myself superior to homosexuals and want to oppress them....it kind of makes it seem like you're calling me a racist

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I know you said you didn't mean to call me a racist, but when you say I'm fighting a battle of hate because I view myself superior to homosexuals and want to oppress them....it kind of makes it seem like you're calling me a racist

Well if I say 'I'm not calling you a racist' I think it's safe to assume that I'm not calling you a racist, and there's no reason you should say I'm calling you a racist. Unless of course right after saying 'I'm not calling you a racist', I actually say 'you're a racist'.

Which I didn't. In fact, I wasn't necessarily saying you you, which is why I noted that at first. I said if you're fighting the war against homosexuality. You meaning anyone who is fighting such a war is the equivalent to fighting the war against black people in the 1960s, because the argument is exactly the same. And people are just too blind to see that. Again, not calling you specifically out, but the general opposition.

 

[Caleb8844]

Well, considering I'm the only one debating for the other side at the moment, I assumed you meant me. I apologize if I got the wrong idea

 

[Irvine511]

why do you think it's important to make sure gay people remain second class citizens?

 

[BVS]

Please explain why a mom and dad are not the ideal family.

Please explain why the the destruction of this family unit has been a positive event for this generation.

This was never the point.

Now you either know this and willingly play ignorant, or you really don't understand this subject enough to have an adult conversation about it.

This combined with your constant avoidance of questions shows a person that lacks the tools to engage in such a debate.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

And lack the support for their argument outside of a superiority claim.

 

[Irvine511]

And lack the support for their argument outside of a superiority claim.

and it's that claim that tells us that, in all cases, heterosexual Charlie Sheen, so long as he is with a woman who can thusly be a mother, is a better parent than these two men:

Against All Odds, a Beautiful Life
By PETER APPLEBOME

MONTCLAIR, N.J.

Some things we know for sure — a little boy dealt a seemingly impossible hand, the two gay men who decided to give him a home and a life, the unlikely spell cast by the only horse in Montclair.

Beyond that, well, it was what you could never quite know as much as what you could that drew 500 people, friends and strangers, to St. Luke’s Episcopal Church on Saturday to ponder the lesson in grace and resilience, the parable of good lives and deeds outside the prescribed lines, in the remarkably long and way-too-short life of Maurice Mannion-Vanover, dead at the age of 20 on Jan. 14.

Few people begin life with so many strikes against them as Maurice had when he was born with AIDS on Sept. 11, 1990, to a crack-addicted mother in a hospital in Washington. There were physical and developmental issues severe enough that his twin sister, Michelle Reed, lived only 20 months. Deserted by his parents, he got his first break in 1993 when two men, intent on caring for a baby with serious physical needs, agreed to take him in.

The two, who came to be known as the Tims, Tim Mannion and Tim Vanover, were told he would probably live six months. But, to everyone’s amazement, he began to thrive. He gained weight. His T-cell count steadily increased. In 1996, they adopted him, becoming the first gay couple in Washington to adopt a child. A year later, they adopted a second son, Kindoo, eight years older. When Tim Vanover got a new job in New York, they moved to Montclair in 1998.

Eventually, the family of two white gay men and two black children became two men, two children and one horse, Rocky, short for Rockefeller. The Tims bought Rocky, a 4-year-old cross between a Morgan and a quarter horse, for $3,500 in 2002 and gave him to Maurice on Christmas Eve.

Montclair, a densely populated suburb, isn’t exactly horse country, but they had a double lot with an old carriage house near downtown. And Maurice had fallen in love with horses, almost transformed by their presence. Atop a horse, seemingly glued to the saddle, the slender child seemed to blossom, his back straighter, his eyes brighter, as if on top not of a horse, but of the world.

To say this was a blessing for Maurice is an understatement. But it wasn’t just for Maurice. Before long, everyone in Montclair, certainly every kid, knew about the house with the horse and the incredibly lucky kid who owned him. And before long, the intersection of Union and Harrison was a mecca for children and a magnet for passers-by, invariably greeted with a wave from Maurice and often a greeting from Rocky, who trotted up to view neighbors each day on their way to work.

It’s not as if everything went smoothly. Far from it. Maurice’s health could be precarious, like the heart condition that almost killed him in 1998.

Rocky sometimes got free, galloping down busy Harrison Avenue, where the New Jersey Transit buses go, then eating some of the neighbors’ flowers. And the Tims — stout, outgoing Tim Vanover and thin, more reserved Tim Mannion — broke up, but only as a couple, not as Maurice’s fathers, choosing to live together and continue to raise him.

None of that affected Maurice, who became a fixture in his neighborhood and church, a Buddha smile always on his face, the iPod — full of Ella Fitzgerald, Edith Piaf, “The Lion King” — seemingly permanently attached. He graduated from a special-education high school, traveled to Central America, Europe and Africa with his fathers, volunteered at the church food ministry. On Dec. 12, he became a black belt in tae kwon do. He wanted to live on his own and become an elementary school teacher’s aide.

And then on a trip to Toronto in January with Mr. Vanover, he got sick. Then he got sicker. There was pneumonia, sepsis, acute renal failure. “It’s time,” he said several times, seemingly in his normal, slightly Delphic voice. No one knew quite what he meant, but it didn’t occur to anyone it meant that this was all the time he had. But it was.

Making sense of it all goes far beyond the known facts of Maurice, the Tims and Rocky the Horse: the way his beloved dog, Hunter, keeled over and died a few hours after Maurice passed on; the way Rocky took Mr. Vanover’s head with his own and drew it close to him, as if sharing grief in a hug. Before the funeral service, Rocky, the Tims and Kindoo walked to the church in front of the hearse. Maurice’s priest and friend, the Rev. John A. Mennell, recalled his incandescent smile, his cut-to-the-chase greetings, his unerring instinct for doing the right thing, if not always the proper one.

He recalled the day Maurice was helping with the collection plate.

“You can do better,” Maurice said amiably to one congregant. It was the story of his life. You can do better, he said, and without quite knowing it, everyone did.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

What a story

It plays almost exactly into what I was talking about though. Imagine what were to become of this had he been kept by his 'parents'? The only thing that makes a straight couple more ideal is the social factor that one might be rejected due to the fact that he or she has homosexual parents.

In which case, it's the homophobia/heterosexism that leads to this, not the 'superiority' of a straight couple of parents.

 

[anitram]

Beautiful story and what a lovely family.

I would challenge anyone on this thread who keeps insisting that marriage is only for one man and one woman and that the only ideal parental unit is a mother and a father to look these people in the eye and tell them that their child could have had better.

 

[anitram]

This is also worth pointing out:

At 3, Maurice was adopted by a couple that requested a child with medical needs. Tim Mannion and Tim Vanover brought Maurice home through the foster care system in 1993.

I can't help but notice that this child languished in the foster care system for 3 years when we have all these "ideal" heterosexual couples out there who could have been raising him.

 

[Irvine511]

I would challenge anyone on this thread who keeps insisting that marriage is only for one man and one woman and that the only ideal parental unit is a mother and a father to look these people in the eye and tell them that their child could have had better.

here ya go:

I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”


Marriage Talking Points - National Organization for Marriage

so, yes, according to the preeminent organization dedicated to the protection of Traditional Marriage, this child would have been much better off with Charlie Sheen or Britney Spears.

 

[anitram]

Mercifully these bigots will be obsolete very soon.

Time marches forward, and this fight has already been lost by them. They just haven't accepted it yet.

 

[kramwest1]

Beautiful story and what a lovely family.

I would challenge anyone on this thread who keeps insisting that marriage is only for one man and one woman and that the only ideal parental unit is a mother and a father to look these people in the eye and tell them that their child could have had better.

Well said.
I couldn't come up with words to describe my reaction to the story.
My gut reaction was that I wished I was a better person and could do such a thing to help a child in need.


(BTW--Anyone care to think what the health insurance situation was like for 2 gay men adopting a child with AIDS? I'm guessing that is just an HMO landmine field.)